Democrat Invokes This 2-Word Philosophy To Defend His Censure Vote Of Al Green Amid Backlash

Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) is defending his controversial vote to censure his Democratic colleague Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) following Green’s protest that disrupted President Donald Trump’s recent address to a joint session of Congress.

During an interview with NewsNation on Sunday, Bera told anchor Chris Stirewalt that Green’s demonstration was a “distraction” from the Democratic Party’s overall strategy. And when asked about those who argue that Trump himself doesn’t “play by the rules,” Bera told the cable news network that we need “radical civility.”

“We need to stand up for the American people,” he added.

Shortly after Trump began his remarks in the House chamber last week, Green rose from his seat, pointed his cane at the president and protested the GOP’s budget plan by yelling: “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid.”

Green was eventually escorted from the chamber after he refused to sit, despite several warnings from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he would be removed. Other Democratic lawmakers in attendance protested Trump more subtly — i.e. holding up signs in acts of dissent or wearing coordinating shades of pink.

The House of Representatives adopted a censure resolution by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) to formally reprimand Green days later. The resolution, which has no practical effect beyond a public rebuke that goes on the record, was approved with a 224-198 vote, and two lawmakers, one of whom was Green, voted “present.”

People have since expressed outrage that Green, who became just the 28th House member in history to get cited, was censured for his conduct, considering Republican lawmakers have notably heckled and caused various disturbances during presidential addresses in recent years.

Many were also especially dismayed that the following 10 Democrats joined Republicans to rebuke Green: Bera, Reps. Ed Case of Hawaii, Jim Costa of California, Laura Gillen of New York, Jim Himes of Connecticut, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Jared Moskowitz of Florida, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Tom Suozzi of New York.

″[Ten] Democrats voted to censure Al Green. They don’t seem to understand how much their own base wants to see his kind of action,” one person on X, formerly Twitter, wrote.

“The Democratic Party is weak and feckless,” another X user wrote, adding, “Democratic Leaders continue to play nice when the entire party is screaming to fight back.”

“Democrats: Trump is Hitler. Also Democrats: Let’s censure the only guy who actually stood up to ‘Hitler’ and called him out in the House chamber,” wrote another.

When Bera invoked the term “radical civility” to defend his vote to censure Green, he might’ve been communicating the idea that “given this time of political polarization, it’s important to elevate civility as a central tenet of policy-making and politics,” said Chandler James, assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Oregon.

Read on to hear more from experts in American politics on the censure resolution — and the backlash to Dems voting for it.

Some Dem lawmakers think “radical civility” will help to distinguish them from the Republican Party.

James told HuffPost that he believes many Democratic lawmakers feel as though they want to “be the party of civility … the party of decency.”

He said that Dems voting to censure Green may “reflect their attempts to be consistent. To apply the same standard to their own team as they would apply to the other side.”

“But this is complicated by the fact that that’s not how a majority of people in Congress are acting,” he continued. “When a Democrat does it, the Republicans decry it, but when a Republican does it, there’s mostly silence on [the Republican Party’s] part.”

David Hopkins, an associate professor in the Political Science Department at Boston College, said that he suspects that Bera’s mention of “radical civility” means that the congressman is addressing a “question of what the appropriate response is to Trump’s election.”

“Trump himself is famous for not respecting a lot of the traditional norms of politics and of public behavior, and so then I think the dilemma is, as an opposition party, do you respond in a like manner to him?” Hopkins said. “Or is your response, ’Well we’re not going to get into a mud fight. We’re going to take the high road.’”

Many have criticized methods like Bera’s call for “radical civility” as a way to oppose the Trump administration.

MSNBC host Chris Hayes said during a segment of “All in with Chris Hayes” last week that he applauded Green for trying “something” and that “now is the time for trying things.”

“We are dealing with Trump’s assault on the Constitution, so it is ridiculous to think that this strategy of playing it safe is the solution to that assault,” he said later in the program.

Qasim Rashid, a human rights lawyer, wrote in an opinion piece last week: “Democrats cannot afford to play by outdated rules while Republicans wage an all-out assault on democracy. The censure of Rep Al Green is more than just a betrayal — it’s a symptom of a party that refuses to recognize the urgency of this moment.”

Speaking about the difference in behavior between Democrats and Republicans during Trump’s second term, Kari J. Winter, professor of American studies at the University at Buffalo, previously told HuffPost: “We’re living in a moment where aggression from MAGA folks is so extreme and constant … and a lot of times Democrats look like deer caught in the headlights.”

Democrats have different views on how to oppose the Trump administration. 

Hopkins said — noting that some Democratic lawmakers represent more closely contested districts — there’s “tension within the Democratic Party about what’s the optimal strategic response” to oppose Trump.

“There’s going to be probably differences of opinion within the party about what to do,” he said. “If Trump is doing all these unprecedented things, do you find unprecedented ways to respond?”

“Or do you say… you’re never going to compete with Trump for that, and really the way to respond to Trump is to let Trump be the one who is wallowing in the mud, and you want take the more civil, respectful stylistic route,” he continued.

As for the Democrats who voted to censure Green, Hopkins said that some Democrats, perhaps even some of those who didn’t vote to censure him, might have felt frustrated that his protest was not done with coordination or approval from his peers.

Overall, Hopkins said he thinks people can put “too much emphasis on what the opposition party is doing.”

“What’s much more important is what voters think about what Trump is doing;  do they approve or disapprove of what is Trump doing?” he said. “If they approve, there’s only so much Democrats can do to fight that.”

Hopkins said that if voters disapprove of Trump, “the Democrats will benefit politically regardless of what their precise message is or precise strategy is.”

James also emphasized that he believes the censure resolution vote had a lot to do with the fact that some of those Democratic lawmakers represent contested districts.

He said a demonstration like Green’s “maybe has some benefits” but also “comes with some costs.”

“There’s something about Green standing up for what he believes in and standing up to the president that demonstrates his character, what he believes in, his values, his tenacity,” he said, pointing out that any protest, like the protests during the Civil Rights Movement, can face backlash and criticism over its tactics.

While James said he wouldn’t necessarily “diminish or uplift” Green’s demonstration, he would describe the moment as “bold.”

“I think that’s why it resonated with a lot of people who are searching for someone to contest the Trump administration,” he said.

He later added: “Democrats are going through a necessary period of reflection and re-tooling trying to figure out what’s the best path forward.”

Related…